So I was reading this article today about Clarence Thomas in regards to his unreported financial gifts from his friends. In the article it talks about how he took in his grand-nephew (his sister's grandson), Martin. His nephew was sent to prison and Thomas stepped in with an offer to help.

The article explains:

“Thomas explained that the boy would have the best of everything — his own room, a private school education, lots of extracurricular activities,” journalists Kevin Merida and Michael Fletcher reported in their biography of Thomas.

Thomas gained legal custody of Martin and became his legal guardian around January 1998, according to court records.

Martin, who had been living in Georgia with his mother and siblings, moved to Virginia, where he lived with the justice from the ages of 6 to 19, he said.

****

So, I was a bit taken aback by the fact that there were siblings and just the one 6 year old was chosen and well, taken. Obviously I don't know the whole picture here, and the mom agreed to it, but there's such an economic disparity that I feel like this isn't even an ethical offer. Even with it being family, it reads like a wealthy childless couple taking advantage of a poorer, disadvantaged family member to essentially buy a child. Why couldn't he fund the child having his own room and a private education while he lived with his mom and siblings? Why would he take just the one child? Does this seem unethical to anyone else?